Category Archives: in the news

Oh fuck! Minister swears on TV

Posted on by
Reply

Outrage! Shock! Horror!

The minister in charge of Australia’s broadcasting standards has dropped the F-word live on national television during children’s viewing hours. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was answering an AAP question about the risk for investment in Australia at the National Press Club in Canberra that was being shown live on the ABC today. 

His offending remarks:

"In terms of sovereign risk, I love the debate about sovereign risk,”

"I have seen a new definition of sovereign risk, it’s asymmetrical.

"If a tax goes up, God, that is sovereign risk, but if a tax goes down that’s fucking fantastic, excuse me, that is fantastic.”

The opposition later attacked Senator Conroy for making a "sloppy and vulgar" speech at the press club.  No doubt there will be other guardians of all that is good and proper in the world who will be outraged (rather than disappointed, because these days no one is just disappointed, or annoyed, when they don’t like something … no, they are OUTRAGED, at least according to the mainstream media’s view of the world)

I’d actually rather see our politicians drop the occasional F bomb, or do other “normal” things rather than have everything they say scripted and coached, bland and afraid to offend anyone.

Besides, complaining about politicians swearing is akin to complaining about them lying.

PS – this just demonstrates my point from an old post, that “fuck” is the most versatile word in the English language.

And this is what we’re fighting for?

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty two Australian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and thousands of others from the US and numerous other countries.  Some of these at least have been the victims of treachery by those they were there to help, by training and mentoring them.

Is it worth it?

You have to wonder when things like this continue to happen there.

A woman has been in jail for 2 years, having been imprisoned for adultery after having been raped by a relative at her home.  She had a child by her attacker, and was raising it in her prison cell.  And this wasn’t happening in some backwater far flung corner of the country – it was in the capital, Kabul.

Her case came to light when Afghan president Hamid Karzai intervened to have her released after receiving a petition with 5,000 signatures.  Karzai called a meeting where judicial officials decided to pardon her.  But there was a twist in this tail. 

The officials also said that the woman should marry the man who attacked her, due to fears she could be in danger if released because of the stigma surrounding her attack in ultra-conservative Afghanistan.  She agreed to this (no duress at all, right?) but only if her attacker’s (and future husband) sister married her brother.  This was said to be a way to try to ensure she wasn’t attacked by her rapist/attacker/husband.

In another example of how women are treated in this fine example of civilisation, a 17-year-old girl was seriously injured when caustic liquid was sprayed on her face by masked gunmen who broke into her home in the northern city of Kunduz.  Her mother and 4 sisters were also injured after being splashed with acid.  Her father blamed a former militia commander who had proposed marriage to her but was rejected by the family.

"A man asked for her hand. We rejected [him] and our daughter was engaged to someone else. I suspect that man might be behind this,"

he said.

Violence against women in Afghanistan appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, despite billions of dollars of international aid that has poured into the country during the last 10 years. 

About 87 per cent of Afghan women report having experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence or forced marriage, according to figures quoted in an October report by the charity Oxfam.

Last week, the United Nations said that a landmark law aiming to protect women against violence in Afghanistan had been used to prosecute just more than 100 cases since being enacted two years ago.

A wonderful civilisation isn’t it?  And our soldiers are being killed just maintaining the level of barbarism where it is, the argument being it would be much worse otherwise.  Worth it?

Maybe we should just all of those Afghans who want to join the 21st century to leave and go live somewhere else, then build a great big fence around those who want to go back to the 15th century, and let them kill each other off.

I’m listening to TISM – Greg! The Stop Sign

Will this have a happy ending?

Posted on by

Given the government has a one seat majority in parliament, and that only with the votes of a Green and 2 independents, I’m not seeing a happy ending for Craig Thomson, the ALP member for the seat of Dobell.  Nor for the Prime Minister and her government.

Mr Thomson has been accused in Federal Parliament and in newspapers of using a union credit card to pay for prostitutes. During defamation proceedings begun by Mr Thomson against one of those newspapers in the NSW Supreme Court, credit card vouchers with Mr Thomson’s signature, phone records and his driver’s licence details were alleged to reveal how he had used his union credit card to pay escort agency services in April 2005.   He has denied that it was him that used the card for prostitutes, and said another man – who he would not name – had incurred the charges, forged his signature but later paid money back to the union.   Mr Thomson later discontinued his defamation action.

The attraction to the Opposition of Mr Thomson is in a scandal forcing him to resign his seat, leading to a by-election, which most likely would be won by the Opposition, overturning the government’s one seat margin in parliament.

Today shadow attorney-general George Brandis told the Senate there were a number of undisputed facts that were now public.

"That on two occasions, on April 8, 2005 and August 16, 2007, calls were made from Mr Thomson’s mobile telephone to the telephone number of Sydney Outcall, an escort agency.

"That on April 9, 2005 and August 16, 2007 the HSU (Health Services Union) credit card issued to Mr Thomson was used to pay for services provided by Keywed Pty Ltd, which is the corporate entity which trades as Sydney Outcalls."

He said the payments were in the amounts of $2,475 and $385 respectively, and the credit card vouchers were signed in Mr Thomson’s name and Mr Thomson’s driver’s license number was endorsed on the receipt. He also said that a handwriting expert has concluded the signature on the credit card voucher and Mr Thomson’s drivers license were made by the same person.

"If Thomson did not sign the credit card voucher then it was signed in his name by an expert forger who eluded Mr Westwood (the expert) and who also had Thomson’s driver’s license,"

he said.  Senator Brandis asked how could Mr Thompson’s credit card, driver’s license and mobile phone "find their way into the possession of another person".  Then there is a final pertinent question which has not been answered:

"Why was their loss or misappropriation not reported?"

This article by Senator Brandis spells out his points against Mr Thomson in full.

Now this is all embarassing for Mr Thomson, and by association, the government.  Snicker, snicker, loser, has to pay for sex.  But there is also the strong possibility that the union’s funds were used unlawfully, or at least outside the union’s rules, not to mention questions over whether Mr Thomson had fulfilled his duties as a union official with appropriate diligence.  At worst, there is a possibility that charges relating to fraudulent use of union funds, or misappropriation or something like that could be laid.  And if so, and if Mr Thomson were to be convicted of a serious enough crime, he would be disqualified from parliament.  But that would take time, and I think it very unlikely that even if Mr Thomson were charged today, any trial and conviction would not be finalised until after the next election is due anyway.

But, things got interesting this week when it was reported that Mr Thomson’s legal bills related to his discontinued defamation action, have been funded by the NSW branch of the ALP, to the tune of $90,000.  This was apparently because had he been forced to pay them himself, there was a chance it would have forced him into bankruptcy.  And that is also a disqualifier to being in parliament.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard got involved yesterday when she defended Mr Thomson, saying she has full confidence in him and looks forward to continuing as the member for Dobell "for a very long, long, long time to come".

I think that was a very bad decision on her part.  If he goes down by virtue of his alleged dodgy dealings as a union official prior to entering parliament, she has tied herself to his wagon, and will inevitably crash with him.  And I think it unconscionable that she try to defend him and brush glibly over his alleged misbehaviour, as it is also unconscionable that the ALP pay his private legal bills.  These legal matters are nothing to do with his role as a member of parliament or indeed in performing any role for the party.  The party has no justification in supporting him in the way it has.

The prime minister is looking like a slippery weasel trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion to this matter. In any other circumstance other than  Mr Thomson being essential to the government holding its majority in parliament, it is hard to imagine him not being forced to stand aside pending some sort of independent investigation, if not being asked to resign.  That is the right thing to do, regardless of the circumstances.  It is not right to defend him now whereas nothing would be surer than him being thrown overboard if the government had any sort of comfortable majority.

Ms Gillard is tarred by association with Mr Thomson if she continues to defend him.  The right thing for her to do is face up to the inevitable, demand that he resign his seat and take the consequences of a by-election.  If she won’t do it, I would hope that one of Mr Windsor or Mr Oakeshott force the government’s hand and demand she take firm action.

It really is a no win position for the government.  There will be no happy endings for them from this.  But they can choose to act with some honour.  Failing that the prime minister may cling to power for a short while longer – but it will inevitably end badly for her government.

New pool cleaners needed

Posted on by

I don’t think I’ll ever be going for a swim at the public swimming pool in Fall River, Massachusetts any time.  The operators obviously kept on top of their pool cleaning, so much so that the "murky and cloudy" water concealed the body of a drowned woman for two days while people swam there.

The body of Marie Joseph was submerged at the bottom of the 3.6-metre deep end of the pool from Sunday afternoon until Tuesday night.  Her body was only discovered after it floated to the surface shortly before some kids snuck into the pool for a late night swim on Tuesday night.

Initial investigations show the water in the pool was murky from the time the pool opened for the season last Saturday. Visibility tests conducted on Wednesday revealed a diver couldn’t be seen at a depth of up to 1.2 metres below the surface of the water.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation, which runs the pool, immediately closed all 30 deep-water swimming pools under its control.  Some have since reopened after inspectors found they met required safety standards.  Others will reopen once inspections are complete.  But the pool at Fall River won’t be reopening any time soon – the entire staff has been suspended from duty.

I’m actually surprised that the victim was able to drown in the pool – all the murk and scum must have just about been thick enough to keep her on top of the water.

Rural welfare

Posted on by

Once again, I see that when the rural sector has business problems, it has its hand out for welfare from the government.  Rural socialism (of the risks and losses) strikes again – of course when it comes to the good times, everyone wants to keep the profits and for the government to butt out.

The government today announced a $30m assistance package to those affected by the ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia.  Those affected would be able to apply for an immediate cash injection of $5000 and make a further claim for up to $20,000 of financial assistance.  No means test will apply to the package because it was "a hardship grant" for business, unlike the income subsidy arrangements announced previously.

I’m struggling to see why the cattle industry deserves special payments from government at a time like this.  They blame the government for suspending exports to Indonesia, but the reality is that the problems that led to the ban seem to have largely been ones that the industry’s own marketing and export body, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) (owned by producers), either turned a blind eye to, or was incompetent in failing to detect over a period of some years.  So if producers and others in the industry are suffering losses, it is MLA where they should be looking to for compensation, not taxpayers in general.

If I own a shop and my market collapses, especially if I am complicit in the causes of it, does the government come to my aid?  Apart from providing standard Centrelink benefits, no.  So why are cattle producers different?  Why do their businesses deserve special treatment?  Can’t they manage their own ups and downs in the course of business?

Almost perfect

Posted on by

There are 49,000 permanently employed teachers in the NSW government school system.

They are clearly so close to perfection, and achieving such a high standard of excellence, that only 5 were dismissed last year for poor performance.  That’s about 0.01%.  Not only that, but less than 100 were put on performance improvement programs – that’s 0.2%.

More teachers (19) were actually dismissed for sexual misconduct than for poor performance.

So I guess its congratulations to the NSW education system for having such great teachers, and I suppose that must be reflected in the results that students coming through the education system are achieving.

Or more likely, the standards are set low, and the barriers to dealing effectively with poor performing teachers too high, so that all except the very bottom of the barrel, or more particularly, a few unlucky enough to have a principal determined enough to jump through all the hoops, or dumb enough not to be able to weasel their way out from the discipline process.

Of course, the lack of effective performance management of teachers and discipline wouldn’t have anything to do with:

  1. education departments being full of ex (and often failed) teachers
  2. the strength of the teachers’ unions

I just think it defies logic that only 5 teachers in NSW were considered bad enough to be sacked for being shit teachers in a year, and only 100 bad enough to be put through formal performance management processes.  I would think a few hundred and a couple of thousand respectively should be closer to the mark.  Just guessing.

Education of our children demands a good standard of teachers.  I would suggest that a lot is being let slip in this regard, and that the system retains many poor teachers who do not belong in a classroom in front of students.

Yep, I can see the sense of purpose and all that

Posted on by

According to Julia Gillard, the reasons she moved against Kevin Rudd last year to take over as Prime Minister included:

“We had lost a sense of purpose and plan for the future,”

“We didn’t have a clear plan as to how we were going to deal with a set of difficult questions or a clear plan, generally, about where the Government was driving towards. What I’ve done as Prime Minister is inject that sense of clarity of purpose.”

Really?  I must admit I’m struggling to see it.  Her government does not convey to me that it has a meaningful sense of direction nor the ability to carry out actions needed to achieve whatever its apparent direction is.

On the day she became PM, Ms Gillard said Labor was a good government that had “lost its way” and she specifically named the super profits mining tax, asylum seeker policy and climate change as the three problem issues.

Well, she dealt with the mining tax by largely caving in to the miners, the asylum seekers by cobbling together a half baked East Timor proposal which has now morphed into the Malaysia one, which is heading rapidly down the debacle path, and climate change, well we had the abortive citizens’ forum idea and then the announcement of a half baked, seriously under-developed carbon price/tax policy.

So really Prime Minister, if that is your idea of providing direction and clarity of purpose, I think you’re deluding yourself.  The impression I get is more of making shit up as you go.

Try pissing in the toilet

Posted on by

Michelle Egglestone from Ballarat in Victoria is suing her former fiance over injuries she suffered at his house.

It seems they were having a few (?) drinks on the verandah of the house when she decided she needed to pee.  But go to the toilet?  No way, that’s for softies.  Instead she hung over the side of a veranda in the back garden when she fell onto a star picket underneath.

She suffered pelvic, lower abdominal, vaginal, rectal and bladder injuries and required surgery.  Ouch!!!!

Her lawyers say she has since suffered post traumatic stress and depression.  As you would I expect having sat rather forcefully on a pointy stick.

She claims her ex was negligent for failing to adequately light the veranda and for failing to erect a balustrade around it. She says he created a “situation of danger” and exposed her to injury by not capping the star picket onto which she fell and for not warning her of the risk.

How about taking a look in the mirror at yourself, Michelle?  Try pissing in the toilet – it would have saved you a hell of a lot of hurt. (and peeing over the side of the verandah saved you a walk of what, 10 metres, to the toilet).

Having said that, I do feel sympathy for her?  My eyes watered at the thought of what happened to her … just like reading stories of guys who cut their balls off.  And yes, I would think she has a case if the house was as described.

Simply barbaric!

Posted on by

4 Corners tonight on ABC TV in Australia showed the horrific treatment of cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.  The footage on the program shows animals kicked, thrashed and beaten, their throats hacked at, eyes gouged and tails broken. In one incident, a white steer broke its leg on slippery ground, and then, in an effort to force it to walk to the slaughter floor, had its tail broken, eyes gouged and water poured in its nostrils.

RSPCA chief scientist Bidda Jones said that on average, animals had their throats cut 10 times before they died.

The treatment of these animals in Indonesia is especially important to Australia. Indonesia is Australia’s key market for live cattle exports, taking 60 per cent of all cattle, and in 2010, the trade was worth more than $300 million.

But as we know, money talks loudly.  The treatment of the animals seems to have come as a big surprise to the Australian live export industry, so they want us to believe.  LiveCorp CEO Cameron Hall described the scenes as "graphic and disturbing", and announced the suspension of the supply of Australian cattle to three of the four abattoirs. The fourth abattoir, Gondrong in Jakarta, was the scene of sustained suffering by Australian animals. When asked why Gondrong is continuing to process Australian cattle, Mr Hall says training can address the issues. A statement released by industry last week said: "A team of Australian cattle experts will fly to Indonesia this weekend to deliver this training to priority facilities, including this facility."

Yet, 4 Corners has revealed the facility has already been visited six times by industry representatives in the past 14 months.  And the animal welfare people who provided some of the film to 4 Corners were scathing of the industry’s inaction.  Spokeswoman Lyn White said:

"We had assumed that because there were greater level of industry involvement in Indonesia, the treatment of the livestock would have been better,"

"But we couldn’t have been more wrong."

She also said that her suspicions were aroused when the the live export industry released a report in January describing animal welfare in Indonesia as generally good.

The Australian livestock export industry and the Australian Government have invested more than $4 million into improving animal welfare in Indonesia over the past 10 years.  On tonight’s evidence, it doesn’t seem to have achieved much.

Cameron Hall says cruelty to animals is unacceptable, but it will take time to achieve change in a developing country. He said:

"We currently have five people in Indonesia on an everyday basis. We’ve sent 10 more into the Indonesian marketplace,"

"Those people will probably stay there on a three to four week rotation but we’ll continue to send more people up to Indonesia."

LiveCorp insists the acts caught on camera do not reflect the broader Indonesian market.  (The “it was an isolated case” excuse always gets gets a run when someone is caught out).

In response to the Four Corners program, Federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig has ordered an immediate investigation into evidence of cruelty to Australian beef cattle exported live to Indonesia. He also said in budget estimates last week that he had been concerned about the live animal trade for some time and criticised the industry for being too slow in addressing welfare concerns.  Um, Senator, you’re the minister with the power to make them take action faster, so you have failed in your duty.

Tasmanian independent MP Andrew Wilkie says he plans to introduce a private member’s bill into Parliament tomorrow. It is understood he and Senator Nick Xenophon want the live export industry wound up within three years.  Why wait?  The evidence is there.  We should be stopping providing the inputs to Indonesian slaughterhouses until they get their act together and treat the animals as decently as possible.  Simple.  Don’t supply live animals to them without being absolutely satisfied that they are being handled humanely.  This should happen immediately, not in 2, 3 or 5 years time.

Too rich to have an opinion

Posted on by

Today’s drama in Australian politics concerns actress Cate Blanchett’s appearance in a new television advertisement advocating a carbon tax.  She has been accused of being out of touch by promoting the benefits of the tax which she can afford to pay, unlike many Australians.

Blanchett is apparently worth about $53m, which seems in the minds of some to disqualify her from having an opinion.

National Party Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said the ad made Blanchett look self-indulgent.  He said:

"$53 million gives you a whole heap of latitude to care about a lot of things,"

"If you really care, how about you give some money to help people meet the increased costs they are about to face?

Terri Kelleher, of The Australian Families Association, said this:

"It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is. It’s easy for her to advocate it, she’s one of the people who can afford to pay it.

"There are people who have no comfort zone and no room to move."

It’s ironic that the Coalition is using Blanchett’s wealth as a weapon to discredit her views on this issue.  How about the wealth of mining billionaire’s like Andrew Forrest and Clive Palmer?  Way too rich, just have to ignore anything they have to say about anything.  And does it mean that Rupert Murdoch and all his minions at News Limited are dealt out of public debate?  He is seriously rich, so clearly way, way out of touch with the realities of ordinary people.